The Flesh And The Spirit

[bornagainathiest]

Oops!  I just read sdelsolray's post, End.

 

No wonder things are getting confused.

 

In this thread I'm describing the way the author of the book of Hebrews describes religious faith.  (Belief without evidence.)

 

A few months ago I wouldn't have been doing that.

 

I would have been using the secular definition which has to do with trust, based upon personal experience. (Belief based upon evidence.)

 

That might be where you're getting confused.

 

That help?

[Guest end3]

 

 

Should I be held accountable for crimes against humanity based on evidence that one of my distant ancestors once owned slaves back in 1794?  If the answer is, "No", then how can it be "reasonable" for god to hold me accountable for believing based on "evidence" that he displayed thousands of years before the advent of microscopes, cameras, PCRs, and pretty much any other means of detecting and definitively validating evidence?

Given our expanding knowledge base, why wouldn't the answer always be yes? ....not continuing with "crimes"?

 

So, in your view, I should be held accountable for crimes committed by my ancestors and proven by "evidence" that was available at that time?  I should be labelled as a slave master, simply because some 3rd cousin twice removed from my fourth great-grandfather had a few house servants and a workhand or two for his tobacco fields?

 

And you're okay, moreover, with "god" condemning us all as "sinners" simply because he provided "evidence" to folks like Moses (who may not have even been real); and, in this day and age, such "evidence" is no longer convincing or compelling?

 

If the answer to both of these is "yes", then allow me to be the first to point you into the direction of the 21st century.

 

Held accountable in the sense to not perpetuate... You are willing to CONVICT them for NOT having 21st century knowledge. "What is morality Alex". Again, I guess the point being we know completely the outcome of our actions.

 

In other words, how may we act with absolute morality if we don't know absolutely? I assume we have rules that enable us to act with circumstantial morality.....but that's about as good as we can do.

 

How can you act with "absolutism"? You believe because we now have 21st century knowledge that we are in any better shape morally?

[Guest end3]

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Held accountable in the sense to not perpetuate... You are willing to CONVICT them for NOT having 21st century knowledge. "What is morality Alex". Again, I guess the point being we know completely the outcome of our actions.

 

In other words, how may we act with absolute morality if we don't know absolutely? I assume we have rules that enable us to act with circumstantial morality.....but that's about as good as we can do.

 

How can you act with "absolutism"? You believe because we now have 21st century knowledge that we are in any better shape morally?

 

My purpose in using this particular analogy isn't to bring morality or absolutes into what is already a quagmire in itself.  Rather, my purpose is to determine what "evidence" is appropriate for conviction.  

 

You seem to be okay with "god" using the "evidence" he gave to Moses some 4,000 years ago as a basis for his conviction of modern, 21st century humanists.  You seem to be okay with that "evidence" being enough to condemn us as sinners, deserving of hellfire and brimstone.  My point is: if a court of law in 21st century America wouldn't convict me on the basis of evidence against some distant slave owner ancestor; then why should I accept god's "judgment" based on 4,000 year old evidence given to a convicted murderer turned shepherd turned leader of the Israelites?

 

Again, as has already been pointed out by both florduh and BAA, Thomas was given first-hand "proof" (touch the nail scars in my hand, Thomas).  If god truly wants us to believe, why would he not give us all the same proof?  Why does Thomas get the evidence he asks for, but TheRedneckProfessor doesn't?

 

god wants to take his ball and go home because nobody believes in him; but when was the last time he really presented himself in a burning bush?  When was the last time he showed himself in full splendor on the mountain top for everyone with a selfie-cam to see (and, more importantly, record and download onto youtube)?  It's only a whiny little bitch who would be crying that nobody believes what he said, she said, they heard from their grandma who knew somebody whose second cousin's maternal uncle's father was there and heard somebody give the "evidence" for the first time in "history".

[bornagainathiest]

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

[Guest end3]

You seem to be okay with "god" using the "evidence" he gave to Moses some 4,000 years ago as a basis for his conviction of modern, 21st century humanists.  You seem to be okay with that "evidence" being enough to condemn us as sinners, deserving of hellfire and brimstone.  My point is: if a court of law in 21st century America wouldn't convict me on the basis of evidence against some distant slave owner ancestor; then why should I accept god's "judgment" based on 4,000 year old evidence given to a convicted murderer turned shepherd turned leader of the Israelites?

 

Again, as has already been pointed out by both florduh and BAA, Thomas was given first-hand "proof" (touch the nail scars in my hand, Thomas).  If god truly wants us to believe, why would he not give us all the same proof?  Why does Thomas get the evidence he asks for, but TheRedneckProfessor doesn't?

 

god wants to take his ball and go home because nobody believes in him; but when was the last time he really presented himself in a burning bush?  When was the last time he showed himself in full splendor on the mountain top for everyone with a selfie-cam to see (and, more importantly, record and download onto youtube)?  It's only a whiny little bitch who would be crying that nobody believes what he said, she said, they heard from their grandma who knew somebody whose second cousin's maternal uncle's father was there and heard somebody give the "evidence" for the first time in "history".

Without going into some long winded exhort, I don't think it matters. A court today has a version of morality. Christ came back as objective proof of his resurrection in order to satisfy those objective questions. And if Jesus came to the mountaintop streaming through the clouds pouring out miracles, I doubt many would believe....rather scoff.

 

In other words, the effort has been done by God to satisfy humanity and at some point humanity has to make a decision to reciprocate.

[Guest end3]

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

[florduh]

In other words, the effort has been done by God to satisfy humanity and at some point humanity has to make a decision to reciprocate.

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

 

 

 

But your "authority" is sufficient to rule in (your) God.  Fancy that.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

 

 

Thanks End.

 

Now here's a simple question for you.

 

We know that copper conducts electricity, but we don't know this with absolute (100%) certainty.  

 

Given that our knowledge of it has 'gaps' do these remaining gaps take away our authority to say that copper conducts electricity?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

You seem to be okay with "god" using the "evidence" he gave to Moses some 4,000 years ago as a basis for his conviction of modern, 21st century humanists.  You seem to be okay with that "evidence" being enough to condemn us as sinners, deserving of hellfire and brimstone.  My point is: if a court of law in 21st century America wouldn't convict me on the basis of evidence against some distant slave owner ancestor; then why should I accept god's "judgment" based on 4,000 year old evidence given to a convicted murderer turned shepherd turned leader of the Israelites?

 

Again, as has already been pointed out by both florduh and BAA, Thomas was given first-hand "proof" (touch the nail scars in my hand, Thomas).  If god truly wants us to believe, why would he not give us all the same proof?  Why does Thomas get the evidence he asks for, but TheRedneckProfessor doesn't?

 

god wants to take his ball and go home because nobody believes in him; but when was the last time he really presented himself in a burning bush?  When was the last time he showed himself in full splendor on the mountain top for everyone with a selfie-cam to see (and, more importantly, record and download onto youtube)?  It's only a whiny little bitch who would be crying that nobody believes what he said, she said, they heard from their grandma who knew somebody whose second cousin's maternal uncle's father was there and heard somebody give the "evidence" for the first time in "history".

Without going into some long winded exhort, I don't think it matters. A court today has a version of morality. Christ came back as objective proof of his resurrection in order to satisfy those objective questions. And if Jesus came to the mountaintop streaming through the clouds pouring out miracles, I doubt many would believe....rather scoff.

 

In other words, the effort has been done by God to satisfy humanity and at some point humanity has to make a decision to reciprocate.

 

But christ didn't come back as objective proof.  We are only told that christ came back by people writing gospels some hundreds of years after the event.  This is hearsay, at best; not evidence.

 

Moreover, just because some people claim that god put forth some effort doesn't mean he actually did; nor does it mean that the onus is suddenly on me to prove my existence to him.

[Guest Furball]

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

"I guess I don't understand where humanity christianity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush."

 

Fixed it for you. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

You seem to be okay with "god" using the "evidence" he gave to Moses some 4,000 years ago as a basis for his conviction of modern, 21st century humanists.  You seem to be okay with that "evidence" being enough to condemn us as sinners, deserving of hellfire and brimstone.  My point is: if a court of law in 21st century America wouldn't convict me on the basis of evidence against some distant slave owner ancestor; then why should I accept god's "judgment" based on 4,000 year old evidence given to a convicted murderer turned shepherd turned leader of the Israelites?

 

Again, as has already been pointed out by both florduh and BAA, Thomas was given first-hand "proof" (touch the nail scars in my hand, Thomas).  If god truly wants us to believe, why would he not give us all the same proof?  Why does Thomas get the evidence he asks for, but TheRedneckProfessor doesn't?

 

god wants to take his ball and go home because nobody believes in him; but when was the last time he really presented himself in a burning bush?  When was the last time he showed himself in full splendor on the mountain top for everyone with a selfie-cam to see (and, more importantly, record and download onto youtube)?  It's only a whiny little bitch who would be crying that nobody believes what he said, she said, they heard from their grandma who knew somebody whose second cousin's maternal uncle's father was there and heard somebody give the "evidence" for the first time in "history".

Without going into some long winded exhort, I don't think it matters. A court today has a version of morality. Christ came back as objective proof of his resurrection in order to satisfy those objective questions. And if Jesus came to the mountaintop streaming through the clouds pouring out miracles, I doubt many would believe....rather scoff.

 

In other words, the effort has been done by God to satisfy humanity and at some point humanity has to make a decision to reciprocate.

 

But christ didn't come back as objective proof.  We are only told that christ came back by people writing gospels some hundreds of years after the event.  This is hearsay, at best; not evidence.

 

Moreover, just because some people claim that god put forth some effort doesn't mean he actually did; nor does it mean that the onus is suddenly on me to prove my existence to him.

 

At the heart of your argument here is a case of special pleading; nothing more.

 

I can just as easily make the case for Thor.  Thor has demonstrated his existence to humanity repeatedly.  What else is lightening but the glory of Thor upon the mountainside?  When thunder rolls, it is Thor demonstrating the awesome might of his hammer upon the anvil of Valhalla.  When was the last time you saw an Ice Giant?  Never?  That's because Thor destroyed them all, exactly like he promised he would.  Thor has done everything within his power to present himself in all his splendor; yet you scoff at his existence, rather than believe.  At some point, humanity just needs to make the decision to reciprocate.

 

The problem is that myths aren't evidence, no matter how passionately one might believe in them.

[Guest end3]

But christ didn't come back as objective proof.  We are only told that christ came back by people writing gospels some hundreds of years after the event.  This is hearsay, at best; not evidence.

 

Moreover, just because some people claim that god put forth some effort doesn't mean he actually did; nor does it mean that the onus is suddenly on me to prove my existence to him.

I see the story of Thomas as an example or type to express to later Christians that the proof question is valid. I don't know how else to address your thought.

[Guest end3]

The problem is that myths aren't evidence, no matter how passionately one might believe in them.

That's fine. As I said to BAA, I'm not convicted with the certain evidence we have. Thx.

[bornagainathiest]

 

The problem is that myths aren't evidence, no matter how passionately one might believe in them.

That's fine. As I said to BAA, I'm not convicted with the certain evidence we have. Thx.

 

 

Then please say what percentage of evidence-based certainty is needed to change your mind, End.

 

Before you respond, let me make it quite clear that absolutely certain evidence is not an acceptable answer.  

 

We both know that no human can ever have absolute (100%) certainty about any kind of evidence.

.

.

.

Also, please remember that appealing to religious faith is not an acceptable way of answering the question.

 

That's because religious faith is belief without sufficient evidence and the question is about the presence of evidence, not the lack of it.

.

.

.

Please say what percentage of confidence in a body of evidence (up to, but not including 100%) would be needed to change your mind, End.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

 

 

Thanks End.

 

Now here's a simple question for you.

 

We know that copper conducts electricity, but we don't know this with absolute (100%) certainty.  

 

Given that our knowledge of it has 'gaps' do these remaining gaps take away our authority to say that copper conducts electricity?

 

 

Please answer this simple question, End.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

 

 

Thanks End.

 

Now here's a simple question for you.

 

We know that copper conducts electricity, but we don't know this with absolute (100%) certainty.  

 

Given that our knowledge of it has 'gaps' do these remaining gaps take away our authority to say that copper conducts electricity?

 

 

Please answer this simple question, End.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I don't see that it removes our authority for that given understanding, but ultimately we do not have broader authority because our knowledge is limited.....which is my point.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I don't understand where humanity gets the authority to speak with a broad brush.

 

If we would like to discuss limited authority, I'm good with that.

 

....and the place from which each of these stems.

 

But what I am NOT going to do is allow my super limited authority to speak too broadly.

 

I really wish we could agree on these terms and move forward. Y'all act like I can't tell the difference....

 

Humanity's authority to speak comes from the evidence it can see, End.

In secular and scientific terms, this authority is acknowledged to be both limited AND sufficient.  LIMITED, because absolute knowledge is impossible. Yet still SUFFICIENT, because the limited knowledge we do have is enough to reasonably rule out certain things.  Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  

Is limited knowledge sufficient for you to reasonably conclude that humans can't fly by flapping their arms?  Or must you have that absolutely confirmed to a 100% level of confidence before you'll accept that humans can't fly in this way?  Do you really live by an absolute standard?  Demanding absolute proof that the sign has changed from 'Don't Walk' to 'Walk' before you cross over?   Or do you actually you step out when you are reasonably (not absolutely) sure it says, 'Walk'?  

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?

 

Can we agree that human authority is both limited AND YET sufficient to make reasonable conclusions?

 

Can we move forward if you agree that what is not fully and absolutely known is still sufficient to rule out certain things to a reasonable level of confidence?

 

Yes to everything, but I don't believe our authority is sufficient to rule out God. Fair enough?

 

 

Thanks End.

 

Now here's a simple question for you.

 

We know that copper conducts electricity, but we don't know this with absolute (100%) certainty.  

 

Given that our knowledge of it has 'gaps' do these remaining gaps take away our authority to say that copper conducts electricity?

 

 

Please answer this simple question, End.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I don't see that it removes our authority for that given understanding, but ultimately we do not have broader authority because our knowledge is limited.....which is my point.

 

 

I appreciate that this was your point End and thanks for replying.

 

However, you said you wanted to move this thread forwards and to do that it's necessary to find out if anything (except absolute knowledge) would change your mind.

 

Please answer the question I put to you in # 141.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

[Guest end3]

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

 

No, that doesn't square up.  If experience is so directly tied to knowledge, then how can you expect us to "know" a god based solely on the "experiences" of people 4,000 years ago?  

[florduh]

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

You've agreed that nobody can be 100% certain about anything.  

 

So, if your answer to my question is that no body of evidence will change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

If your answer is that only evidence that is 100% certain would change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

The only reasonable answer you can give to my question is a value that is more than 0 % and less than 100 %.

.

.

.

Question : What percentage of confidence in a body of evidence would be needed to change your mind..?

.

.

.

Please answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

 

No, that doesn't square up.  If experience is so directly tied to knowledge, then how can you expect us to "know" a god based solely on the "experiences" of people 4,000 years ago?

 

The only way to address your question is to assume that their account, their experience, relates the story very well. I think my statement DOES square up because we only have so many ways of relating information/experience.